~ politics for the people

Rogue Action: US-Led ‘Coalition’ Has No International Legal Basis For Airstrikes in Syria

If the UK’s intention is solely to degrade and destroy ISIS, then it must request authorization from the Syrian government to participate in a coordinated military campaign that could help speed up the task.

If Western (and allied Arab) leaders can’t stomach dealing with the Assad government on this issue, then by all means work through an intermediary – like the Russians – who can coordinate and authorize military operations on behalf of their Syrian ally.

The Syrian government has said on multiple occasions that it welcomes sincere international efforts to fight terrorism inside its territory. But these efforts must come under the direction of a central legal authority that can lead a broad campaign on the ground and in the air.

The West argues that, unlike in Iraq, it seeks to maintain the institutions of the Syrian state if Assad were to step down. The SAA is one of these ‘institutions’ – why not coordinate with it now?

But after seven weeks of Russian airstrikes coordinated with extensive ground troops (which the coalition lacks), none of these scenarios may even be warranted. ISIS and other extremist groups have lost ground in recent weeks, and if this trend continues, coalition states should fall back and focus on other key ISIS-busting activities referenced in UNSCR 2249 – squeezing terror financing, locking down key borders, sharing intelligence…”all necessary measures” to destroy this group.

If the ‘international community’ wants to return ‘peace and stability’ to the Syrian state, it seems prudent to point out that its very first course of action should be to stop breaking international law in Syria.

Related

Post navigation

7 thoughts on “Rogue Action: US-Led ‘Coalition’ Has No International Legal Basis For Airstrikes in Syria”

I’m so glad you posted this one, Mike as it is very clear, the legality that Cameron talks about is spin.
I hope every one reads it carefully and then rings their MP to challenge them on the legality. Syria did not attack France or the UK and therefore there is no legal right to bomb Syria.
Assad has asked the Russians for help in putting down ISIS and they are doing just that. That is the legal way to do it. No other foreign country has been asked to tackle ISIS except possibly Iran so every single one is acting illegally and could be held responsible for war crimes.
I do hope we can stop this insanity.

The GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bomb is an American aerial bomb, based on the Mk 82 500-pound general-purpose bomb, but with the addition of a …

Unit cost‎: ‎US $21,896

Length‎: ‎3.27 m (10.7 ft)

Weight‎: ‎230 kg (510 lb)

Diameter‎: ‎273 mm (10.7 in)
•Warplanes will today deploy from two British bases to war in Syria as parliament backed airstrikes on ISIS targets
•Six Typhoons, carrying 500lb Paveway bombs, are took off this morning from RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland
•Two Tornados, equipped with precision guided Brimstone missiles, are also flying in from RAF Marham in Norfolk
•Within hours of MPs voting decisively in favour of military action, four Tornados set off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus
•RAF officers will work immediately to identify targets, while top brass have drawn up plans to scramble the SAS
•See full news coverage of the conflict in Syria at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/syria

They must be older than me….did we get a ‘Freebie’ from the Yanks, again?

I had a rather long argument on Twitter on Tuesday evening, with a warmonger who was desperate to convince me that Brimstones were the best thing since sliced bread, and that they were fitted to the Typhoons that would be used. I note from your comment that this was completely false information. I hope that man didn’t fool anybody.

Thanks Mike, I too was not aware of the legal position with respect to the U.K. bombing people in Syria. Nor did I appreciate the special position Russia has due to it being asked to provide assistance to the Syrian government. The media in the ways it presents its news implies that Russia is the rogue state. Another example of how difficult it is to get reliable information upon which to make very important decisions. How on Earth can a democracy function effectively without sufficient reliable information to make informed decisions upon. As the I.T. technician said ‘rubbish in rubbish out’.

The Russian’s are also successfully bombing Daesh controlled oilfields which is helping rein in their income stream which is why Turkey, who are facilitating the terrorists, downed the Russian aircraft on the Syrian/Turkish border.

Of course, both Russia and its allies on the one hand, and the U.S and its allies on the other, have geopolitical interests’ diametrically opposed to one another,which explains these conflicting actions.

But the point is, it’s Russia whose motivation leads them to to destroying Daesh with the view to maintaining Assad’s grip on power, whereas the West’s intention is to usurp the gains made by the terrorists with the view to regime change.

Keir Starmer says the legal basis is the “mutual self-defence” of our ally Iraq, and is essentially an extension of that authority under the recent ( article 5 based ) resolution at the UN. Thjat is pretty flimsy, and probably only works because it is unchallenged ( like the UN safe haven in Benghazi turning into a regime-destruction campaign – illegal, but unchallenged ).

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.